Denley Re [2008] QMHC 18

MENTAL HEALTH COURT CITATION: Re Denley [2008] QMHC 18 PARTIES: REFERENCE BY WETTENHALL SILVA SOLICITORS IN RESPECT OF FRANCIS DENLEY PROCEEDING NO: 0010 of 2007 DELIVERED ON: 15 February 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 15 February 2008 JUDGE: Philippides J ASSISTING PSYCHIATRISTS: Dr F T Varghese Dr E N McVie FINDINGS AND ORDER: 1. That in relation to all of the offences, the defendant was not of unsound mind at the relevant time as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld). 2. That the defendant is fit for trial. 3. That the proceedings are to continue according to law. CATCHWORDS: MENTAL HEALTH – DECLARATION OR FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY – whether intoxication played a role in the commission of the offences – whether defendant was of unsound mind as defined in Schedule 2 of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) at the relevant time. Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), Schedule 2 COUNSEL: S J Hamlyn-Harris for the Defendant W Isdale for the Director of Mental Health A Lossberg for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) SOLICITORS: Wettenhall Silva Solicitors for the Defendant Crown Law for the Director of Mental Health The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [1] PHILIPPIDES J: Francis Denley is charged with a number of offences. They are outlined in the schedule of offences which will be Exhibit 1. [2] In relation to the charge of possession of a dangerous drug on 24 August 2003 and the charge of wilful damage on 31 July 2005, I am satisfied that the defendant was not of unsound mind at the relevant time. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 [3] In relation to the 2006 offences, the matter is somewhat more complicated. There have been varying diagnoses of the defendant's mental condition. I note that when he was seen by Mr Goldenberg on the 31st of October 2006 it was difficult to obtain a cohesive account from the defendant as to his situation. [4] I note, however, that Mr Goldenberg, who is a psychologist, opined that the defendant was demonstrating serious mental health disturbances and possible delusional thinking and a degree of confusion beyond simple forgetfulness, and he recommended that there be further investigation of his mental condition. [5] Dr Woolridge in his first report, compiled after seeing the defendant on 21 November 2006, noted that it was still difficult to obtain a coherent account from the defendant and at the time of that examination he considered that the defendant was suffering from a dementing illness as he described it, the likely cause of which he considered was long-term alcohol abuse. He noted that there were some features of alcohol induced amnesic disorder. He also noted in that report that alcohol intoxication was a factor in most, if not all, of the offences. [6] There was a further report by Dr Woolridge dated 7th of March 2007 which clarified a number of issues. In that report, Dr Woolridge concluded that on the balance of probabilities the defendant was suffering from a mental disease with a relevant deprivation of capacity at the time of the 2006 offences. The mental disease was identified as paranoid psychosis, precipitated and fuelled by the use of marijuana. Dr Woolridge stated in that report that he considered that voluntary intoxication with alcohol was an element in respect of most if not all of the events, but that the mental disease of itself would have been sufficient to deprive the defendant of at least one of the relevant capacities. [7] I note Dr Woolridge's oral evidence that the defendant continued to be unwell until the end of 2006, notwithstanding medication being administered of an anti- psychotic nature, and also notwithstanding that there was most likely abstinence whilst in prison. [8] The difficulty I have in relation to this aspect of the case is being satisfied on the balance of probabilities as to whether intoxication was only a precipitant, and not an element fuelling the psychosis and acting to maintain the psychosis at the time of the offences in 2006. I can accept that the defendant may have developed a psychosis which, as it were, had a life of its own, but the difficulty is in being satisfied on the balance of probabilities that that was the case at the time of the relevant offences in 2006. [9] Given the concessions made by Dr Woolridge himself as to the role of intoxication and while acknowledging that Dr Woolridge concluded that the psychosis and the mental illness was sufficient to exclude intoxication, I nevertheless do not feel that I can be satisfied to the requisite degree that that intoxication did not act as an element in maintaining any psychosis and that it ought to be excluded in that regard. [10] In those circumstances, I find that at the relevant times in 2006 the defendant was not of unsound mind. [11] I find that the defendant is fit for trial. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [12] The proceedings will continue according to law. [13] I grant leave to the parties to use the medical reports in any further proceedings. -- 3 of 3 --